Slow oscillation‐spindle cross‐frequency coupling predicts overnight declarative memory consolidation in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-frequency coupling (CFC) between brain oscillations during non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep (e.g. slow oscillations [SO] and spindles) may be a neural mechanism of overnight memory consolidation. Declines in CFC across the lifespan might accompany coinciding memory problems with ageing. However, there are few reports of CFC changes during sleep after learning in older adults, controlling for baseline effects. Our objective was to examine NREM CFC in healthy older adults, with an emphasis on spindle activity and SOs from frontal electroencephalogram (EEG), during a learning night after a declarative learning task, as compared to a baseline night without learning. Twenty-five older adults (M [SD] age = 69.12 [5.53] years; 64% female) completed a two-night study, with a pre- and post-sleep word-pair associates task completed on the second night. SO-spindle coupling strength and a measure of coupling phase distance from the SO up-state were both examined for between-night differences and associations with memory consolidation. Coupling strength and phase distance from the up-state peak were both stable between nights. Change in coupling strength between nights was not associated with memory consolidation, but a shift in coupling phase towards (vs. away from) the up-state peak after learning predicted better memory consolidation. Also, an exploratory interaction model suggested that associations between coupling phase closer to the up-state peak and memory consolidation may be moderated by higher (vs. lower) coupling strength. This study supports a role for NREM CFC in sleep-related memory consolidation in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".